TOTALLY GEEKED!

Ohfour · Hooker

RE: African Woman Destroys Black/Liberal Praise Of Muhammad Ali With 1 Question

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lily's worried about those killer Muslims when the real threat to her own safety is proven to be other Americans with guns.
So easily led. So easily fooled...
Says the woman who spouts the most ridiculous statistics and can't back them up.
Talk about easily fooled...apple is the epitome.

It looks like she'll believe anything that she wants to be true, whether it is or not.

burns07 · Guru

she's a one-off more than likely--had the privelege of working with some guys years ago in FSSF (the canadian version of our rangers/deltas) and, to a man, they were solid and clear thinking--they had no illusions about what's necessary to survive in this world--they saw the world (and still do) as it really is

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
apple wrote:
Wow, your ignorance and lack of factual posts is astounding.

So all Muslims are out to behead you eh?
I wonder why Satan just doesn't make them explode?

I deal with facts, not fear. While yes there are extremist, and terrorist. According to statistics you should be more fearful of your neighbor with a gun, as that is how thousands upon thousands of Americans die.
Sheesh, its so easy to distract you from the real issues isn't it?
Not all, but a great many. There were 4 people killed by a Muslim extremist just last year about an hour and a half from my house.
Oh, not to MENTION that the fvcker LIVED and worked less than a mile from my house.
Gun ownership in my town is over 80% households. I don't know anyone that doesn't own at least one gun.
The last murder in my county was 2008. He was stabbed.

The biggest cause of death to Americans, other than illness, is another American with a gun. Think about that, terrorist don't even make it on the list unless you count the many domestic terrorist you have experienced in the last few years and that is relatively small in comparison.
Its okay though, I do understand that people are scared and they don't understand that not all Muslims are terrorists its a case of bait and switch, you need someone to hate.

WHAT? That is ABSOLUTELY not true. LINK PLEASE.

And that blue bolded was just 30 minutes from my house.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

The thing about those "Americans killed by guns" how many of those are during crimes or by home grown terrorists?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Flan, you do realize you are defending a group of people that would kill you and your family simply because they exist?

I'm not picking, I just don't think you realize what you are defending.

Interracial marriage, the children from that union, and then then the affair later.

You have an extreme reaction to anything even hinting at racially motivated, yet these muslims who you defend with a blind abandon would slaughter you and your family in a heartbeat.

No. The ones that you service at your library are not coming after you with blow torches and swords, but those same patrons give money to and support the very ones who would.

Just wondering if you have thought about that.

You've listed the reasons why you hate me. Good job.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
The thing about those "Americans killed by guns" how many of those are during crimes or by home grown terrorists?

What difference does that make? Remove the gun from the equation & maybe someone's parent or child lives to see another day.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The thing about those "Americans killed by guns" how many of those are during crimes or by home grown terrorists?
What difference does that make? Remove the gun from the equation & maybe someone's parent or child lives to see another day.
flan

See here. And you always say "I never said take everyone's guns away". And yet, here it is again.

Of course, remove the guns, and people have nothing to defend themselves with. But you love to ignore the fact that crime rates are HIGHER in areas with stricter gun control laws.

Guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens, can save lives.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The thing about those "Americans killed by guns" how many of those are during crimes or by home grown terrorists?
What difference does that make? Remove the gun from the equation & maybe someone's parent or child lives to see another day.
flan
See here. And you always say "I never said take everyone's guns away". And yet, here it is again.

Of course, remove the guns, and people have nothing to defend themselves with. But you love to ignore the fact that crime rates are HIGHER in areas with stricter gun control laws.
Guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens, can save lives.

There is a difference between posing a hypothetical question and a factual statement.

I still believe that the number of innocent people killed by guns, whether during an argument that escalates, or due to lack of basic firearm safety, outweighs the lives that you claim are saved.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The thing about those "Americans killed by guns" how many of those are during crimes or by home grown terrorists?
What difference does that make? Remove the gun from the equation & maybe someone's parent or child lives to see another day.
flan
See here. And you always say "I never said take everyone's guns away". And yet, here it is again.

Of course, remove the guns, and people have nothing to defend themselves with. But you love to ignore the fact that crime rates are HIGHER in areas with stricter gun control laws.
Guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens, can save lives.
There is a difference between posing a hypothetical question and a factual statement.
I still believe that the number of innocent people killed by guns, whether during an argument that escalates, or due to lack of basic firearm safety, outweighs the lives that you claim are saved.
flan

And you are wrong. Even your precious Obama's White House study had to admit that.

White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives: “Consistently Lower Injury Rates Among Gun Using Crime Victims”

Mac Slavo
June 27th, 2013

Though statistics prove time and again that disarming a free people leads to more violent crime and the potential for mass government democide, it hasn’t stopped President Barrack Obama and his Congressional entourage from doing everything in their power to make it more difficult for Americans to legally own firearms.

Citing the Sandy Hook mass shooting last year, democrats on the hill have claimed that we must restrict gun ownership and strip the Second Amendment for the safety of our children and the general public.

But a new report commissioned by the White House titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence suggests what many self defense gun proponents have been saying for years. The report, ordered under one of President Obama’s 23 Executive Orders signed in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Research Council and other federal agencies to identify the “most pressing problems in firearms violence.”

To the surprise of the authors and those who would no doubt have used the report to further restrict access to personal defense firearms, the study found that gun ownership actually saves lives and those who have a firearm at their disposal improve their chances of survival and reduce their chance of injury in the event they are confronted by a violent criminal:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…
…
The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive use of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self protective strategies.
Full Study available at the National Academy of Sciences

Consider that 3 million people use a gun to defend themselves from harm every year. This means that over 8,000 Americans every day act with potentially deadly force to prevent injury or death to themselves or a family member.

In addition to overwhelming evidence that owning a gun reduces your chances of injury when attacked, regardless of whether you fire your gun or not, the new report proves that there has been a decades’ long obfuscation of national statistics that have been used to determine the importance of guns in self defense. Up until this study became available, anti-gun politicians often cited figures that indicated that just 108,000 people a year used guns in self defense. The new study suggests that those numbers were off by over 2500%.

The new White House report coupled with evidence from Australia, Britain and Canada shows that reduction of personal gun ownership is a road to more violence, injury and death.

The President commissioned this study in the hopes of finding a reason to take more guns from law abiding Americans.

What it found, however, is that the answer to gun violence in America is… arming more Americans.

Hattip Satori

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Oh, Lordy, I just Googled Mac Slavin...

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

And, no, I have no desire to read the full study. Most Americans have a peculiar mindset about guns. That won't change any time soon.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Oh, Lordy, I just Googled Mac Slavin...

flan

Attacking the author and ignoring the information again? It's a White House study he's reporting on, flan - whether you want to admit it or not. Try addressing that.

And it's Slavo, not Slavin. We all know how important it is to get names right.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
And, no, I have no desire to read the full study. Most Americans have a peculiar mindset about guns. That won't change any time soon.

flan

Of course you don't. It doesn't say what you want it to say. Obama commissioned that study - and he probably didn't like the results, either.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Just enjoy sitting there embracing your wrongness and continuing to want to take guns away from people that use them to save their own lives.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Oh, Lordy, I just Googled Mac Slavin...

flan
Attacking the author and ignoring the information again? It's a White House study he's reporting on, flan - whether you want to admit it or not. Try addressing that.

And it's Slavo, not Slavin. We all know how important it is to get names right.

Thank you for correcting my mistake.

Are you naive enough to believe that the findings of ANY study cannot be twisted to suit the author's purpose?

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Oh, Lordy, I just Googled Mac Slavin...

flan
Attacking the author and ignoring the information again? It's a White House study he's reporting on, flan - whether you want to admit it or not. Try addressing that.

And it's Slavo, not Slavin. We all know how important it is to get names right.
Thank you for correcting my mistake.
Are you naive enough to believe that the findings of ANY study cannot be twisted to suit the author's purpose?
flan

So you are saying the WHITE HOUSE twisted the study?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And I think you will not pay attention to anything that doesn't agree with you.

There are multiple studies that say the same thing, flan.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
Just enjoy sitting there embracing your wrongness and continuing to want to take guns away from people that use them to save their own lives.

My opinion is neither right or wrong.

And, keep your guns. BUY MORE GUNS.

I could not care less.

There have been studies cited here proving that other first-world countries don't have the high numbers of fatal shootings that occur in America.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Oh, Lordy, I just Googled Mac Slavin...

flan
Attacking the author and ignoring the information again? It's a White House study he's reporting on, flan - whether you want to admit it or not. Try addressing that.

And it's Slavo, not Slavin. We all know how important it is to get names right.
Thank you for correcting my mistake.
Are you naive enough to believe that the findings of ANY study cannot be twisted to suit the author's purpose?
flan
So you are saying the WHITE HOUSE twisted the study?

The author of the article you posted. Try to keep up.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
And I think you will not pay attention to anything that doesn't agree with you.

There are multiple studies that say the same thing, flan.

As do you.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Second Amendment: The White House asked the Centers for Disease Control “to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” We’re pretty sure that what the CDC found wasn’t what the White House was looking for.

The Democrats, and their media allies, obsess over some shootings while ignoring many others.

Kill innocents in a school or theater in large numbers, and the media will fixate on the tragedy while Democrats wail about America’s “gun culture.”

Shoot a minority who’s wearing a hoodie and the left twists the story into something it isn’t while the media turn the shooter into a “white” man, though he, too, is a minority — and an Obama supporter with a mixed ethnic background.

It was under these raw and highly charged circumstances that President Obama asked the CDC in January to perform the study. He was surely looking to manufacture a crisis that he could take advantage of.

What that study revealed, though, does not fit in with the media-Democrat message.

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals,” says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press.

The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were “about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges “from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

Here are a few more salient points from the study:

• “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.”

• “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

• One “body of research” (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found “estimated annual gun use for self-defense” to be “up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”

• “There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”

Does anyone recall this study getting extensive media coverage or the administration plugging its key findings? Of course not. It doesn’t support their anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun ideology. It’s therefore ignored as if it never happened at all.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And I think you will not pay attention to anything that doesn't agree with you.

There are multiple studies that say the same thing, flan.
As do you.
flan

I'm not the one saying a White House study commissioned to find ammunition for more gun control is twisted just b/c it didn't actually find what Obama wanted it to find.

The CDC, flan. Not Mac Slavo.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And I think you will not pay attention to anything that doesn't agree with you.

There are multiple studies that say the same thing, flan.
As do you.
flan
I'm not the one saying a White House study commissioned to find ammunition for more gun control is twisted just b/c it didn't actually find what Obama wanted it to find.

The CDC, flan. Not Mac Slavo.

Neither did I.

Who wrote the article that you posted?

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Oh, Lordy, I just Googled Mac Slavin...

flan
Attacking the author and ignoring the information again? It's a White House study he's reporting on, flan - whether you want to admit it or not. Try addressing that.

And it's Slavo, not Slavin. We all know how important it is to get names right.
Thank you for correcting my mistake.
Are you naive enough to believe that the findings of ANY study cannot be twisted to suit the author's purpose?
flan
So you are saying the WHITE HOUSE twisted the study?
The author of the article you posted. Try to keep up.
flan

Mac Slavo didn't do the study - the CDC did.

That second article is from Investor News.

He didn't twist the study - he reported it. Which is more than the liberal media that would rather is stay buried.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Neither did I.
Who wrote the article that you posted?
flan

What difference does it make? HE DIDN'T WRITE THE STUDY.

Here's the google page - lots of people wrote articles on it. Well, except the main stream liberal media. Again - simply trying to ignore what doesn't agree with them.

White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives: “Consistently ... - SHTF Plan

www.shtfplan.com/.../white-house-study-finds-guns-save-lives-consistently-lower-inju...

Jun 27, 2013 - The President commissioned this study in the hopes of finding a reason to take more guns from law abiding Americans. What it found, however, ...

White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives - Activist Post

www.activistpost.com › Politics

Jun 27, 2013 - White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives: “Consistently Lower Injury ... firearms, the study found that gun ownership actually saves lives and ...

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted | Stock ...

www.investors.com/.../cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-...

Investor's Business Daily

Aug 21, 2013 - Second Amendment: The White House asked the Centers for Disease Control "to ... CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted ... uses of guns ranges “from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”.

White House Report: Guns Save Lives! | GunsSaveLife.com

www.gunssavelife.com/?p=8074

Jun 27, 2013 - White House report finds gun ownership actually saves lives! You'll ... Full Study available at the National Academy of Sciences. More from ...

CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is 'Important Crime ...

www.cnsnews.com/.../cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-cr...

CNSNews.com

Jul 17, 2013 - President Obama signs executive order for CDC gun violence study. ... According to the White House report, “Research on gun violence is not ... leaders to make a positive impact on the lives of kids, families and communities.

HAH! Obama Orders Gun Study, Which Finds Guns Save Lives ...

www.mrconservative.com/.../19972-hah-obama-orders-gun-study-which-finds-guns-s...

Jun 27, 2013 - Obama Orders Gun Study, Which Finds Guns Save Lives ... New Unauthorized Video Could Force Hillary to Give Up Her White House Dreams.

White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives... - Free Republic

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3037156/posts

Free Republic

Jun 27, 2013 - 12 posts - ‎10 authors

White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives. ... But a new report commissioned by the White House titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the ...

White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives: “Consistently Lower ...

www.city-data.com › ... › General Forums › Politics and Other Controversies

City‑Data

Sep 22, 2013 - 10 posts - ‎7 authors

But a new report commissioned by the White House titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence suggests ...

Guns Save Lives? (illegal, deaths, felons, bias) - Politics ...

10 posts

Oct 13, 2013

White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives: 'Consistently ...

1 post

Jun 29, 2013

New White House Study Finds… Guns Save Lives! - Guns & Ammo Forums

forums.gunsandammo.com › Forum › Main Category › Politics/Second Amendment

Jun 30, 2013 - 4 posts - ‎4 authors

Guns Save Lives. http://minutemennews.com/2013/06/white-house-study-finds-consistently-lower-injury-rates-among-gun-using-crime-victims/ ...

Handguns, suicides, mass shootings deaths, and self-defense ... - Slate

www.slate.com/.../handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_...

Slate

Jun 24, 2013 - The White House, emboldened by polls that indicate damage to senators who .... Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives.

Save

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The thing about those "Americans killed by guns" how many of those are during crimes or by home grown terrorists?
What difference does that make? Remove the gun from the equation & maybe someone's parent or child lives to see another day.
flan
See here. And you always say "I never said take everyone's guns away". And yet, here it is again.

Of course, remove the guns, and people have nothing to defend themselves with. But you love to ignore the fact that crime rates are HIGHER in areas with stricter gun control laws.
Guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens, can save lives.
There is a difference between posing a hypothetical question and a factual statement.
I still believe that the number of innocent people killed by guns, whether during an argument that escalates, or due to lack of basic firearm safety, outweighs the lives that you claim are saved.
flan

Now, how about links to back up this claim?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Maybe your library should carry the actual study and then you can read it -

www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I don't need to back up an opinion. It's obvious that people have a visceral reaction to guns.

I just find it curious that, as many arguments about guns that we've had here, this is the first mention made of a study done in 2013.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
I don't need to back up an opinion. It's obvious that people have a visceral reaction to guns.

I just find it curious that, as many arguments about guns that we've had here, this is the first mention made of a study done in 2013.

flan

Well, that's what happens when the government buries a study they did because they didn't like the results. But when you make such statements, you just make my fingers do google magic.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Of course, those of us in favor of gun ownership having been saying the same things all along - with statistics showing rates of crime and gun deaths HIGHER in stricter gun control areas. But you just want to ignore that.

Now you can ignore the CDC's own study. And the CDC is historically in favor of gun control.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I don't need to back up an opinion. It's obvious that people have a visceral reaction to guns.

I just find it curious that, as many arguments about guns that we've had here, this is the first mention made of a study done in 2013.

flan
Well, that's what happens when the government buries a study they did because they didn't like the results. But when you make such statements, you just make my fingers do google magic.

If they "buried" the study, no one would be able to find it...

flan

Mary Zombie · Guru

Oh for god sake. Let's Fucus on if the study was properly buried or not instead of the content. Anything to avoid the meat of the article.

-- Edited by Mary Zombie on Thursday 9th of June 2016 10:09:11 AM

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I don't need to back up an opinion. It's obvious that people have a visceral reaction to guns.

I just find it curious that, as many arguments about guns that we've had here, this is the first mention made of a study done in 2013.

flan
Well, that's what happens when the government buries a study they did because they didn't like the results. But when you make such statements, you just make my fingers do google magic.
If they "buried" the study, no one would be able to find it...
flan

Well, they certainly didn't publicize it, now did they?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And FTR - "buried" is a common word usage in the news. "Buried on page 13".

Ohfour · Hooker

Mary Zombie wrote:
Oh for god sake. Let's Fucus on if the study was properly buried or not instead of the content. Anything to avoid the meat of the article.

LOL! Seriously.

Flan has a hard time admitting when she is wrong.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
And FTR - "buried" is a common word usage in the news. "Buried on page 13".

Who doesn't know that?

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And FTR - "buried" is a common word usage in the news. "Buried on page 13".
Who doesn't know that?
flan

You, apparently.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
Mary Zombie wrote:
Oh for god sake. Let's Fucus on if the study was properly buried or not instead of the content. Anything to avoid the meat of the article.
LOL! Seriously.
Flan has a hard time admitting when she is wrong.

My opinion stands.

Yes, the study does contradict what my head tells me. That doesn't mean I am going to run out and buy a gun.

flan

Tinydancer · Guru

apple would tell you to just go by the facts and not let fear cloud your judgment. So I'm waiting for her to come and tell you the same thing she's always telling everyone else. I bet she won't want to hurt her little parrots feelings..

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And FTR - "buried" is a common word usage in the news. "Buried on page 13".
Who doesn't know that?
flan
You, apparently.

Are we comparing IQ scores now? hmm

flan

Tinydancer · Guru

I wouldn't if I were you flannie.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Yeah, don't really need or want or pay any attention to your "advice."

flan

Tinydancer · Guru

Oh well. I give good advice. Your loss.

apple · Guru

So tell me then, as an American are you more likely to be killed by a terrorist or another American...with a gun?
Perhaps the "focus" should be on the real dangers but nobody wants to do that because......

anybody?

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

Around here I'm most likely to die in a car accident. Then a terrorist attack considering how close to DC I live.

apple · Guru

Lexxy wrote:
Around here I'm most likely to die in a car accident. Then a terrorist attack considering how close to DC I live.

I know right, crossing the street here is much more of an at risk action than being killed by a terrorist.

For what its worth, I think that Americans are at their best when they have a common enemy.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

apple wrote:
Lexxy wrote:
Around here I'm most likely to die in a car accident. Then a terrorist attack considering how close to DC I live.
I know right, crossing the street here is much more of an at risk action than being killed by a terrorist.
For what its worth, I think that Americans are at their best when they have a common enemy.

It's the only time we have a united front for sure.

Tinydancer · Guru

Yes so let's ban cars.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And FTR - "buried" is a common word usage in the news. "Buried on page 13".
Who doesn't know that?
flan
You, apparently.
Are we comparing IQ scores now?
flan

I don't think you want to do that.